Originally Posted by
Thedude
But the problem is many of the mid size city routes that used to be 73s and F100s have been replaced with the damn 50 seaters. Yes, frequency has increased on those routes but the overall number of seats available has gone down in the market I live in.
In the market you live in, sure. In other markets, it simply depends on other variables like season, or if it's being used to simply add capacity without adding much cost.
Originally Posted by
Thedude
I do not enjoy riding 2 hrs on a full RJ that has no seat padding on a market that used to be a 73 route.
Have you rode in the back of a CAL aircraft? The seats in the back of my company's "regional" aircraft suck.
The seats in the back of a CAL aircraft suck worse.
Originally Posted by
Aviatormar
When was this? I've been at AWAC for 3 years, I've had exactly one time where I've been unable (filed under 3585 with 50 people and bags all the way from PHL to MCI) that I've had to kick people off the plane. The CRJ when used correctly is not a bad plane at all.
I'm not sure if it's "being used correctly" is the proper term. Or if it's simply more dependent on the specific operator's performance data vendor, etc. On some of the LAX routes that XJT flew, they had no problem filling the plane up, where as ASA planes couldn't. RNO being one example.
Conversely, XJT has some screwed up enroute performance issues. A SKW 200 could be taking off ahead of us, going to the EXACT same place. They could accept a direct, we couldn't due to a SE ceiling over mountainous terrain issue.